Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

And lets not forget the most infamous ear-marked bill in the history of this presidency: "Should the United States come under times of duress before or during the interchange of occupiers of the Presidential Office, the current President and his cabinet shall retain power until such time as stability can be restored." What a load of garbage...

Can I get a source on this "ear-mark"? (I've searched on google for parts of that text and found nothing. Is it really a signing statement?)

aye, I'd like the source as well. I've heard this one before and I *think* it was some language in one of the signing statements for one of our less stellar PATRIOT law or something related.... but it'd be really nice to have something to point to. I have a feeling the line is paraphrased... but nuttier things have been documented.

aye, I'd like the source as well. I've heard this one before and I *think* it was some language in one of the signing statements for one of our less stellar PATRIOT law or something related.... but it'd be really nice to have something to point to. I have a feeling the line is paraphrased... but nuttier things have been documented.

Yeah, my apologies for trying to sound all official...I like to do that sometimes for whatever reason. I just paraphrased it, but there was an actual ear-marked bill passed through (in 2006 I believe), that stated basically what I said. I'll try to find it, but without remembering what bill it was attached to, it may be challenging. I'll do my best, but don't hold your breath.

Edit: OK, I'm going to retract my previous statement, insofar as the actual "it was an earmark on a bill" portion is concerned. Though I have heard that from a number of different sources, not being able to verify said claim with physical evidence means it is more likely that statement is untrue. However, I will supplement it with the following document:

The preceding is the President's "Radio Address" from 2006, in which he eludes to the possibility of delaying or postponing elections in times of war with the following comment:

"Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war."

Though you may find comfort in this statement, as indeed it does speak to the nature of the government's democratic resolve, it is also scary to read between the lines, and realize that the President is subtly suggesting that elections should not be held in times of war.

There are other sources to suggest he has eluded to this idea in the past, but I have chosen this one, as it is a direct transcript from White House Radio.

Take from it what you will. I apologize for posting statements without having sources to back them up, but I thought I had read that (I had probably read this), and I had distinctly heard that from a number of different sources.

The last quote in the article really got to me. I can understand where she's coming from, but that could create a severe gully of problems. If everyone interested in our economy has to play by our rules, people are just going to stop involving themselves in our economy. If there's no benefit to their economic stability and growth, they have no purpose spending money here. The could just as easily go to Japan, China, Russia, and a few other countries, to get whatever it is they're looking for.

I don't think we should let other countries push us around when it comes to globalization and free market economies, but we certainly can't submit ultimatums like "Play by our rules or get out" to the world; they'll clearly and quickly choose the latter, unless it's just fiscally impossible for them to do so.

So it would appear Clinton lives to fight another day. She seems to have Ohio wrapped up and she's leading in Texas by a fingernail. Talk about topsy-turvy changes in fortune. This race has been fascinating... just fascinating.

But right at the moment, isn't Obama still in the lead in the Democratic side? Not only that, I don't think the ballot counting isn't finished either so Obama could still be winning (I remember when I was surprised to hear that Obama won 8 Primaries consecutively and totally kicked Clinton's butt).

At least it's over for Mike Huckabee. He officially dropped out of the race even though he was fully aware that he was never going to make it (this reminds me of when he appeared on Saturday Night Live few weeks back). John McCain, the only so far candidate who is left in the race to the White House supports the Iraq War, is the Republican winner (*cue applause*).

As a command-in-chief, I'd definitely would support him strongly for his experiences as a soldier. On the other hand, for Barack Obama, I really can't strongly support him anymore because I realized that he's just a great speaker. Yes, you have Hilary Clinton with experiences, but I've been hearing too much of her Healthcare policy.

That's all I wanted to say. It may not carry much of weight, but at least I got something off my chest.

CNN just called Texas for Hillary. Considering that Hillary just took Rhode Island, Ohio AND Texas while Obama only took Virginia today... I think that Hillary has a good chance of retaking the lead.

Thank goodness.

Statistically, Hillary cannot retake the pledged delegate lead. She needs to win basically 60/40 in every contest till the end. She is going to barely gain any delegates today. Vermont and Rhode Island cancel out while Ohio/Texas primaries will go + and Texas Caucus will go - since it will go for Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

I didn't expect Hillary to not have a landslide victory over Obama in Texas...

Hillary was losing the polls going into Texas. It was pretty much assured that due to the bizzare system that Texas uses, that she would lose in delegates (or come out nearly equal) whether she won the state or not.

Yup. You read me right. Mind you, if Hillary loses the election Obama is still my second choice, but I am very eager to finally be able to vote for a candidate that I feel is actually the best person for the job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reckoner

It was actually Vermont that Obama won.

Oops. I meant Vermont. The other "V" state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reckoner

On a side note... Every time I hear Obama speak, I want to puke.

Puke?! Why?

__________________

There's not that fine a line between willing suspension of disbelief and something just being stupid.

Wow, this is a surprise. I had expected Hillary Clinton to lose, but amazingly, she managed to stop Obama's momentum. She may still be behind in terms of delegate count, but psychologically, she has scored a major victory.

Relative to the Republican campaign though, I'm not sure if the continued contest for a Democratic presidential nominee is a good thing. McCain seems like a reliable chap, being an ex-veteran who is not afraid to speak his mind. I would rather not have another Republican in the White House though. After eight years, I think the world has had enough of assertive US foreign policy.

When it comes to my vote, I feel like I need to support someone in solidarity with "my people". Someone who reaches out to my community and connects with me on more than just a personal level, but a "life-experience" level. Someone who represents the possibilities for others like me...

That's why, as a white male Ph.D, I join with my fellow overly educated people to support Obama.

Anyhow, I hope Hilarly can pull this through to the convention and get enough super delegates to support her.

The delegates are currently the democrats worst nightmare. Michigan/Florida being the lesser one and the absolute worst thing, the Super Delegates. If the super delegates end up deciding this, it will be a total disaster for the party. It will come across as the establishment flexing their muscle. This might convince all the new voters that came out to the primary that, in the end, their votes didn't matter and the establishment decided everything. When the super delegates hold almost 1/5th of the power in nominating the president, they are a threat to the party.

Quote:

I would find it quite silly though for a presidential nominee to win California, New York, Texas, and Ohio only to lose. No offense to the rest of the U.S., but we are the largest states.

Except New York and California are democratic strongholds. They will go in the D column whether it's Obama or Clinton. Texas is a republican stronghold and will be in the R column. Ohio is a swing state and does matter in the grand scheme.

I would find it quite silly though for a presidential nominee to win California, New York, Texas, and Ohio only to lose. No offense to the rest of the U.S., but we are the largest states.

And that's why all the other states think the Electoral College and the makeup of the Senate is a Good Idea

Actually at this point, the Dems could run an ashtray for Prez and I'd vote for it. I've spent a good deal of my voting life as a sort of cranky WFBuckley/Dole/Goldwater sort of Republican and I think the theo-fascist-asshat wing of the party needs a Very Long Time Out (and some people need to be in jail).

Of course, the way things are at the moment, I'm afraid I'll be hearing the strains of "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss" once the corporate lobbyists finish redecorating.

Either Hillary or Barack would be fine with me --- though Hillary is doing herself no favors with the somewhat Rovian nonsense her handlers are generating. Her comment about her and McCain having lots of experience but Barack had only a 2002 speech .... that basically can be read as an endorsement of McCain over Obama --- which is going to *really* bite when the Republicans use the soundbite if they have to face Obama in the summer.

Wow, this is a surprise. I had expected Hillary Clinton to lose, but amazingly, she managed to stop Obama's momentum. She may still be behind in terms of delegate count, but psychologically, she has scored a major victory.

Relative to the Republican campaign though, I'm not sure if the continued contest for a Democratic presidential nominee is a good thing. McCain seems like a reliable chap, being an ex-veteran who is not afraid to speak his mind. I would rather not have another Republican in the White House though. After eight years, I think the world has had enough of assertive US foreign policy.

Interesting contest indeed.

You know, I was surprised that Hilary didn't die off either, even though we shouldn't be surprised because she did surprised everyone at New Hampshire.

I'll just invite people to check Obama's record as Senator and his political life prior to that. There's a fair amount you have to ignore to assert he has "no experience". Clinton does have some experience as a Senator and a lot of indirect experience via her husband -- but as everyone knows, just counting years of experience doesn't make for automatic superiority.
They both have pretty similar policy positions - its almost a matter of whose style you prefer.

The big problem I have with many Obama fans is that they don't actually know what he's about --- they're just charmed by style or want to be "where its happening". Not knowing the candidate... well, that's no better than voting for Bush despite his overall failures as a businessman or politician.

The weakness Ms. Clinton has against McCain is the legions of "swift boat" attacks she'll take for the last Clinton-era antics.
And while Obama vs McCain would be a replay of Kennedy vs Nixon (charisma slam dunk video style) --- Obama would have his own share of problems from the even seedier side of swiftboating.
I just hope McCain toasted himself with his mind-bogged choice to sidestep the torturing issue, his "100 Year War" ideas for Iraq, and he "doesn't know much about the economy" routine. One would think that might overcome any Rovian swiftboat crap.